Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Commitments As of June 30, 2013, approximately $14 billion of unused credit was available to Bill Me Later accountholders. While this amount represents the total unused credit available, we have not experienced, and do not anticipate, that all of our Bill Me Later accountholders will access their entire available credit at any given point in time. In addition, the individual lines of credit that make up this unused credit are subject to periodic review and termination by the chartered financial institution that is the issuer of Bill Me Later credit products based on, among other things, account usage and customer creditworthiness. When a consumer makes a purchase using a Bill Me Later credit product, the chartered financial institution extends credit to the consumer, funds the extension of credit at the point of sale and advances funds to the merchant. We subsequently purchase the receivables related to the consumer loans extended by the chartered financial institution and, as a result of the purchase, bear the risk of loss in the event of loan defaults. Although the chartered financial institution continues to own each customer account, we own the related receivable, and Bill Me Later is responsible for all servicing functions related to the account. Litigation and Other Legal Matters Overview We are involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. If we believe that a loss arising from such matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we accrue the estimated liability in our financial statements. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. Amounts accrued for legal proceedings for which we believe a loss is probable were not material for the six months ended June 30, 2013. Except as otherwise noted, we have concluded that reasonably possible losses arising directly from the proceedings (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) in excess of our accruals are also not material. For those proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, we have disclosed an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses or we have concluded that an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising directly from the proceeding (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) are not material. If we cannot estimate the probable or reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising from a legal proceeding, we have disclosed that fact. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, we evaluate, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require us to change our business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on our business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 8, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies. Specific Matters In August 2006, Louis Vuitton Malletier and Christian Dior Couture filed two lawsuits in the Paris Court of Commerce against eBay Inc. and eBay International AG. Among other things, the complaint alleged that we violated French tort law by negligently broadcasting listings posted by third parties offering counterfeit items bearing plaintiffs' trademarks and by purchasing certain advertising keywords. Around September 2006, Parfums Christian Dior, Kenzo Parfums, Parfums Givenchy, and Guerlain Société also filed a lawsuit in the Paris Court of Commerce against eBay Inc. and eBay International AG. The complaint alleged that we had interfered with the selective distribution network the plaintiffs established in France and the European Union by allowing third parties to post listings offering genuine perfumes and cosmetics for sale on our websites. In June 2008, the Paris Court of Commerce ruled that eBay and eBay International AG were liable for failing to prevent the sale of counterfeit items on its websites that traded on plaintiffs' brand names and for interfering with the plaintiffs' selective distribution network. The court awarded plaintiffs approximately EUR 38.6 million in damages and issued an injunction (enforceable by daily fines of up to EUR 100,000) prohibiting all sales of perfumes and cosmetics bearing the Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy and Kenzo brands over all worldwide eBay sites to the extent that they are accessible from France. We appealed this decision, and in September 2010, the Paris Court of Appeal reduced the damages award to EUR 5.7 million and modified the injunction. We further appealed this decision to the French Supreme Court, and in May 2012, the French Supreme Court ruled that the appeal court should not have assumed jurisdiction upon activity that took place on the eBay.com site and that the injunction was too broad insofar as it did not exclude private sales. The court also noted that the appeal court had not sufficiently dealt with assertions that the plaintiffs' distribution contracts were not valid. Those matters will now be remanded to the Paris Court of Appeal. In 2009, plaintiffs filed an action regarding our compliance with the original injunction, and in November 2009, the court awarded the plaintiffs EUR 1.7 million (the equivalent of EUR 2,500 per day) and indicated that as a large Internet company we should do a better job of enforcing the injunction. Parfums Christian Dior has filed another motion relating to our compliance with the injunction. We have taken measures to comply with the injunction and have appealed these rulings, noting, among other things, the modification of the initial injunction. In light of the French Supreme Court ruling mentioned above, we asked the court to stay proceedings with respect to enforcement of the injunction pending the retrial of the matters on appeal, and this request has been granted. However, these and similar suits may force us to modify our business practices, which could lower our revenue, increase our costs, or make our websites less convenient to our customers. Any such results could materially harm our business. Other brand owners have also filed suit against us or have threatened to do so in numerous different jurisdictions, seeking to hold us liable for, among other things, alleged counterfeit items listed on our websites by third parties, “tester” and other not for resale consumer products listed on our websites by third parties, alleged misuse of trademarks in listings, alleged violations of selective distribution channel laws, alleged violations of parallel import laws, alleged non-compliance with consumer protection laws and in connection with paid search advertisements. We have prevailed in some of these suits, lost in others, and many are in various stages of appeal. We continue to believe that we have meritorious defenses to these suits and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. In May 2009, the U.K. High Court of Justice ruled in the case filed by L'Oréal SA, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie and L'Oréal (UK) Ltd against eBay International AG, other eBay companies, and several eBay sellers (No. HC07CO1978) that eBay was not jointly liable with the seller co-defendants as a joint tortfeasor, and indicated that it would certify to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) questions of liability for the use of L'Oréal trademarks, hosting liability, and the scope of a possible injunction against intermediaries. In July 2011, the ECJ ruled on the questions certified by the U.K. High Court of Justice. It held that (a) brand names could be used by marketplaces as keywords for paid search advertising without violating a trademark owner's rights if it were clear to consumers that the goods reached via the key word link were not being offered by the trademark owner or its designees but instead by third parties, (b) that marketplaces could invoke the limitation from liability provided by Article 14 of the ecommerce directive if they did not take such an active role with respect to the listings in question that the limitation would not be available, but that even where the limitation was available, the marketplace could be liable if it had awareness (through notice or its own investigation) of the illegality of the listings, (c) that a marketplace would be liable in a specific jurisdiction only if the offers on the site at issue were targeting that jurisdiction, a question of fact, (d) that injunctions may be issued to a marketplace in connection with infringing third party content, but that such injunctions must be proportionate and not block legitimate trade and (e) that trademark rights can only be evoked by a rights owner as a result of a seller's commercial activity as opposed to private activity. The matter will now return to the U.K. High Court of Justice for further action in light of the ECJ opinion. The case was originally filed in July 2007. L'Oréal's complaint alleged that we were jointly liable for trademark infringement for the actions of the sellers who allegedly sold counterfeit goods, parallel imports and testers (not for resale products). Additionally, L'Oréal claimed that eBay's use of L'Oréal brands on its website, in its search engine and in sponsored links, and purchase of L'Oréal trademarks as keywords, constitute trademark infringement. The suit sought an injunction preventing future infringement, full disclosure of the identity of all past and present sellers of infringing L'Oréal goods, and a declaration that our Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) program as then operated was insufficient to prevent such infringement. The scope of a possible injunction claimed is to be specified after the trial upon remand from the ECJ. eBay's Korean subsidiary, IAC (which has merged into Gmarket and is now named eBay Korea), has notified its approximately 20 million users of a January 2008 data breach involving personally identifiable information including name, address, resident registration number and some transaction and refund data (but not including credit card information or real time banking information). Approximately 149,000 users sued IAC over this breach in several lawsuits in Korean courts and more may do so in the future (including after final determination of liability). Trial for a group of representative suits began in August 2009 in the Seoul Central District Court, and trial for other suits began later in the Seoul Central District Court. There is some precedent in Korea for a court to grant “consolation money” for data breaches without a specific finding of harm from the breach. Such precedents have involved payments of up to approximately $200 per user. In January 2010, one bench of the Seoul Central District Court ruled that IAC had met its obligations with respect to defending the site from intrusion and, accordingly, had no liability for the breach. This January 2010 ruling was appealed by approximately 34,000 plaintiffs to the Seoul High Court. In September 2012, a bench of the Seoul High Court announced its decision upholding the Seoul Central District Court's January 2010 decision for three cases involving 55 plaintiffs (who did not appeal to the Korea Supreme Court). Between April and June 2013, three benches of the Seoul High Court upheld the Seoul Central District Court's January 2010 ruling in 15 additional cases involving 23,466 plaintiffs. The Seoul High Court's decision in seven of these 15 cases has been appealed by 22,886 plaintiffs to the Korea Supreme Court so far with one case pending appeal. Five additional cases before two other benches of the Seoul High Court are currently being heard de novo, and decisions are expected later in 2013 or 2014. Currently, the Korea Supreme Court is reviewing a total of eight cases with 22,889 plaintiffs, including one case appealed from the Daegu High Court. In January 2013, the Seoul Western District Court ruled in favor of IAC with respect to two cases filed by 2,291 plaintiffs following the January 2010 ruling, and 2,284 plaintiffs proceeded to appeal the January 2013 decision of the Seoul Western District Court to the Seoul High Court. General Matters Other third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that we have infringed their intellectual property rights. We are subject to patent disputes, and expect that we will increasingly be subject to additional patent infringement claims involving various aspects of our Marketplaces, Payments and Enterprise (formerly known as GSI) businesses as our services continue to expand in scope and complexity. Such claims may be brought directly against our companies and/or against our customers (who may be entitled to contractual indemnification under their contracts with us), and we are subject to increased exposure to such claims as a result of our acquisitions of other businesses or assets, particularly in cases where we are entering into new businesses in connection with such acquisitions. We have in the past been forced to litigate such claims. We may also become more vulnerable to third-party claims as laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Lanham Act and the Communications Decency Act are interpreted by the courts, and as we expand the range and geographical scope of our services and become subject to laws in jurisdictions where the underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries like ourselves are either unclear or less favorable. We believe that additional lawsuits alleging that we have violated patent, copyright or trademark laws will be filed against us. Intellectual property claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to defend and resolve, could require expensive changes in our methods of doing business, or could require us to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements on unfavorable terms. From time to time, we are involved in other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of business. These disputes and inquiries include suits by our users (individually or as class actions) alleging, among other things, improper credit and/or collection activities; improper disclosure of our prices, rules or policies; that our prices, rules, policies or customer/user agreements violate applicable law; that we have not acted in conformity with such prices, rules, policies or agreements; or violations of privacy laws and policies. The number and significance of these disputes and inquiries are increasing as our company has grown larger, our businesses have expanded in scope (both in terms of the range of products and services that we offer and our geographical operations) and our products and services have increased in complexity. Any claims or regulatory actions against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, damage awards (including statutory damages for certain causes of action in certain jurisdictions), injunctive relief or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, require us to change our business practices in expensive ways, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources or otherwise harm our business. Indemnification Provisions In the ordinary course of business, we have included limited indemnification provisions in certain of our agreements with parties with which we have commercial relations, including our standard marketing, promotions and application-programming-interface license agreements. Under these contracts, we generally indemnify, hold harmless and agree to reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with claims by a third party with respect to our domain names, trademarks, logos and other branding elements to the extent that such marks are applicable to our performance under the subject agreement. In certain cases, we have agreed to provide indemnification for intellectual property infringement. Our Enterprise business has provided in many of its major ecommerce agreements an indemnity for other types of third-party claims, which are indemnities mainly related to various intellectual property rights, and we have provided similar indemnities in a limited number of agreements for our other businesses, including our Magento business. In our PayPal business, we have provided an indemnity to our payment processors in the event of certain third-party claims or card association fines against the processor arising out of conduct by PayPal or PayPal customers. PayPal has also provided a limited indemnity to merchants using its retail point of sale payment services. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions due to our limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular provision. To date, losses recorded in our statement of income in connection with our indemnification provisions have not been significant, either individually or collectively. Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements As of June 30, 2013, we had no off-balance sheet arrangements that have, or are reasonably likely to have, a current or future material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources. In Europe, we have two cash pooling arrangements with a financial institution for cash management purposes. These arrangements allow for cash withdrawals from this financial institution based upon our aggregate operating cash balances held in Europe within the same financial institution (“Aggregate Cash Deposits”) for more efficient cash management and investment purposes. These arrangements also allow us to withdraw amounts exceeding the Aggregate Cash Deposits up to an agreed-upon limit. The net balance of the withdrawals and the Aggregate Cash Deposits are used by the financial institution as a basis for calculating our net interest expense or income under these arrangements. As of June 30, 2013, we had a total of $4.1 billion in cash withdrawals offsetting our $4.1 billion in Aggregate Cash Deposits held within the same financial institution under these cash pooling arrangements.

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

As of June 30, 2013, approximately $14 billion of unused credit was available to Bill Me Later accountholders. While this amount represents the total unused credit available, we have not experienced, and do not anticipate, that all of our Bill Me Later accountholders will access their entire available credit at any given point in time. In addition, the individual lines of credit that make up this unused credit are subject to periodic review and termination by the chartered financial institution that is the issuer of Bill Me Later credit products based on, among other things, account usage and customer creditworthiness. When a consumer makes a purchase using a Bill Me Later credit product, the chartered financial institution extends credit to the consumer, funds the extension of credit at the point of sale and advances funds to the merchant. We subsequently purchase the receivables related to the consumer loans extended by the chartered financial institution and, as a result of the purchase, bear the risk of loss in the event of loan defaults. Although the chartered financial institution continues to own each customer account, we own the related receivable, and Bill Me Later is responsible for all servicing functions related to the account.

Litigation and Other Legal Matters

Overview

We are involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. If we believe that a loss arising from such matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we accrue the estimated liability in our financial statements. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. Amounts accrued for legal proceedings for which we believe a loss is probable were not material for the six months ended June 30, 2013. Except as otherwise noted, we have concluded that reasonably possible losses arising directly from the proceedings (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) in excess of our accruals are also not material. For those proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, we have disclosed an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses or we have concluded that an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising directly from the proceeding (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) are not material. If we cannot estimate the probable or reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising from a legal proceeding, we have disclosed that fact.

In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, we evaluate, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require us to change our business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on our business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 8, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies.

Specific Matters

In August 2006, Louis Vuitton Malletier and Christian Dior Couture filed two lawsuits in the Paris Court of Commerce against eBay Inc. and eBay International AG. Among other things, the complaint alleged that we violated French tort law by negligently broadcasting listings posted by third parties offering counterfeit items bearing plaintiffs' trademarks and by purchasing certain advertising keywords. Around September 2006, Parfums Christian Dior, Kenzo Parfums, Parfums Givenchy, and Guerlain Société also filed a lawsuit in the Paris Court of Commerce against eBay Inc. and eBay International AG. The complaint alleged that we had interfered with the selective distribution network the plaintiffs established in France and the European Union by allowing third parties to post listings offering genuine perfumes and cosmetics for sale on our websites. In June 2008, the Paris Court of Commerce ruled that eBay and eBay International AG were liable for failing to prevent the sale of counterfeit items on its websites that traded on plaintiffs' brand names and for interfering with the plaintiffs' selective distribution network. The court awarded plaintiffs approximately EUR 38.6 million in damages and issued an injunction (enforceable by daily fines of up to EUR 100,000) prohibiting all sales of perfumes and cosmetics bearing the Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy and Kenzo brands over all worldwide eBay sites to the extent that they are accessible from France. We appealed this decision, and in September 2010, the Paris Court of Appeal reduced the damages award to EUR 5.7 million and modified the injunction. We further appealed this decision to the French Supreme Court, and in May 2012, the French Supreme Court ruled that the appeal court should not have assumed jurisdiction upon activity that took place on the eBay.com site and that the injunction was too broad insofar as it did not exclude private sales. The court also noted that the appeal court had not sufficiently dealt with assertions that the plaintiffs' distribution contracts were not valid. Those matters will now be remanded to the Paris Court of Appeal. In 2009, plaintiffs filed an action regarding our compliance with the original injunction, and in November 2009, the court awarded the plaintiffs EUR 1.7 million (the equivalent of EUR 2,500 per day) and indicated that as a large Internet company we should do a better job of enforcing the injunction. Parfums Christian Dior has filed another motion relating to our compliance with the injunction. We have taken measures to comply with the injunction and have appealed these rulings, noting, among other things, the modification of the initial injunction. In light of the French Supreme Court ruling mentioned above, we asked the court to stay proceedings with respect to enforcement of the injunction pending the retrial of the matters on appeal, and this request has been granted. However, these and similar suits may force us to modify our business practices, which could lower our revenue, increase our costs, or make our websites less convenient to our customers. Any such results could materially harm our business. Other brand owners have also filed suit against us or have threatened to do so in numerous different jurisdictions, seeking to hold us liable for, among other things, alleged counterfeit items listed on our websites by third parties, “tester” and other not for resale consumer products listed on our websites by third parties, alleged misuse of trademarks in listings, alleged violations of selective distribution channel laws, alleged violations of parallel import laws, alleged non-compliance with consumer protection laws and in connection with paid search advertisements. We have prevailed in some of these suits, lost in others, and many are in various stages of appeal. We continue to believe that we have meritorious defenses to these suits and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.

In May 2009, the U.K. High Court of Justice ruled in the case filed by L'Oréal SA, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie and L'Oréal (UK) Ltd against eBay International AG, other eBay companies, and several eBay sellers (No. HC07CO1978) that eBay was not jointly liable with the seller co-defendants as a joint tortfeasor, and indicated that it would certify to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) questions of liability for the use of L'Oréal trademarks, hosting liability, and the scope of a possible injunction against intermediaries. In July 2011, the ECJ ruled on the questions certified by the U.K. High Court of Justice. It held that (a) brand names could be used by marketplaces as keywords for paid search advertising without violating a trademark owner's rights if it were clear to consumers that the goods reached via the key word link were not being offered by the trademark owner or its designees but instead by third parties, (b) that marketplaces could invoke the limitation from liability provided by Article 14 of the ecommerce directive if they did not take such an active role with respect to the listings in question that the limitation would not be available, but that even where the limitation was available, the marketplace could be liable if it had awareness (through notice or its own investigation) of the illegality of the listings, (c) that a marketplace would be liable in a specific jurisdiction only if the offers on the site at issue were targeting that jurisdiction, a question of fact, (d) that injunctions may be issued to a marketplace in connection with infringing third party content, but that such injunctions must be proportionate and not block legitimate trade and (e) that trademark rights can only be evoked by a rights owner as a result of a seller's commercial activity as opposed to private activity. The matter will now return to the U.K. High Court of Justice for further action in light of the ECJ opinion. The case was originally filed in July 2007. L'Oréal's complaint alleged that we were jointly liable for trademark infringement for the actions of the sellers who allegedly sold counterfeit goods, parallel imports and testers (not for resale products). Additionally, L'Oréal claimed that eBay's use of L'Oréal brands on its website, in its search engine and in sponsored links, and purchase of L'Oréal trademarks as keywords, constitute trademark infringement. The suit sought an injunction preventing future infringement, full disclosure of the identity of all past and present sellers of infringing L'Oréal goods, and a declaration that our Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) program as then operated was insufficient to prevent such infringement. The scope of a possible injunction claimed is to be specified after the trial upon remand from the ECJ.

eBay's Korean subsidiary, IAC (which has merged into Gmarket and is now named eBay Korea), has notified its approximately 20 million users of a January 2008 data breach involving personally identifiable information including name, address, resident registration number and some transaction and refund data (but not including credit card information or real time banking information). Approximately 149,000 users sued IAC over this breach in several lawsuits in Korean courts and more may do so in the future (including after final determination of liability). Trial for a group of representative suits began in August 2009 in the Seoul Central District Court, and trial for other suits began later in the Seoul Central District Court. There is some precedent in Korea for a court to grant “consolation money” for data breaches without a specific finding of harm from the breach. Such precedents have involved payments of up to approximately $200 per user. In January 2010, one bench of the Seoul Central District Court ruled that IAC had met its obligations with respect to defending the site from intrusion and, accordingly, had no liability for the breach. This January 2010 ruling was appealed by approximately 34,000 plaintiffs to the Seoul High Court. In September 2012, a bench of the Seoul High Court announced its decision upholding the Seoul Central District Court's January 2010 decision for three cases involving 55 plaintiffs (who did not appeal to the Korea Supreme Court). Between April and June 2013, three benches of the Seoul High Court upheld the Seoul Central District Court's January 2010 ruling in 15 additional cases involving 23,466 plaintiffs. The Seoul High Court's decision in seven of these 15 cases has been appealed by 22,886 plaintiffs to the Korea Supreme Court so far with one case pending appeal. Five additional cases before two other benches of the Seoul High Court are currently being heard de novo, and decisions are expected later in 2013 or 2014. Currently, the Korea Supreme Court is reviewing a total of eight cases with 22,889 plaintiffs, including one case appealed from the Daegu High Court. In January 2013, the Seoul Western District Court ruled in favor of IAC with respect to two cases filed by 2,291 plaintiffs following the January 2010 ruling, and 2,284 plaintiffs proceeded to appeal the January 2013 decision of the Seoul Western District Court to the Seoul High Court.

General Matters

Other third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that we have infringed their intellectual property rights. We are subject to patent disputes, and expect that we will increasingly be subject to additional patent infringement claims involving various aspects of our Marketplaces, Payments and Enterprise (formerly known as GSI) businesses as our services continue to expand in scope and complexity. Such claims may be brought directly against our companies and/or against our customers (who may be entitled to contractual indemnification under their contracts with us), and we are subject to increased exposure to such claims as a result of our acquisitions of other businesses or assets, particularly in cases where we are entering into new businesses in connection with such acquisitions. We have in the past been forced to litigate such claims. We may also become more vulnerable to third-party claims as laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Lanham Act and the Communications Decency Act are interpreted by the courts, and as we expand the range and geographical scope of our services and become subject to laws in jurisdictions where the underlying laws with respect to the potential liability of online intermediaries like ourselves are either unclear or less favorable. We believe that additional lawsuits alleging that we have violated patent, copyright or trademark laws will be filed against us. Intellectual property claims, whether meritorious or not, are time consuming and costly to defend and resolve, could require expensive changes in our methods of doing business, or could require us to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements on unfavorable terms.

From time to time, we are involved in other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of business. These disputes and inquiries include suits by our users (individually or as class actions) alleging, among other things, improper credit and/or collection activities; improper disclosure of our prices, rules or policies; that our prices, rules, policies or customer/user agreements violate applicable law; that we have not acted in conformity with such prices, rules, policies or agreements; or violations of privacy laws and policies. The number and significance of these disputes and inquiries are increasing as our company has grown larger, our businesses have expanded in scope (both in terms of the range of products and services that we offer and our geographical operations) and our products and services have increased in complexity. Any claims or regulatory actions against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, damage awards (including statutory damages for certain causes of action in certain jurisdictions), injunctive relief or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, require us to change our business practices in expensive ways, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources or otherwise harm our business.

Indemnification Provisions

In the ordinary course of business, we have included limited indemnification provisions in certain of our agreements with parties with which we have commercial relations, including our standard marketing, promotions and application-programming-interface license agreements. Under these contracts, we generally indemnify, hold harmless and agree to reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with claims by a third party with respect to our domain names, trademarks, logos and other branding elements to the extent that such marks are applicable to our performance under the subject agreement. In certain cases, we have agreed to provide indemnification for intellectual property infringement. Our Enterprise business has provided in many of its major ecommerce agreements an indemnity for other types of third-party claims, which are indemnities mainly related to various intellectual property rights, and we have provided similar indemnities in a limited number of agreements for our other businesses, including our Magento business. In our PayPal business, we have provided an indemnity to our payment processors in the event of certain third-party claims or card association fines against the processor arising out of conduct by PayPal or PayPal customers. PayPal has also provided a limited indemnity to merchants using its retail point of sale payment services. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions due to our limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular provision. To date, losses recorded in our statement of income in connection with our indemnification provisions have not been significant, either individually or collectively.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of June 30, 2013, we had no off-balance sheet arrangements that have, or are reasonably likely to have, a current or future material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.

In Europe, we have two cash pooling arrangements with a financial institution for cash management purposes. These arrangements allow for cash withdrawals from this financial institution based upon our aggregate operating cash balances held in Europe within the same financial institution (“Aggregate Cash Deposits”) for more efficient cash management and investment purposes. These arrangements also allow us to withdraw amounts exceeding the Aggregate Cash Deposits up to an agreed-upon limit. The net balance of the withdrawals and the Aggregate Cash Deposits are used by the financial institution as a basis for calculating our net interest expense or income under these arrangements. As of June 30, 2013, we had a total of $4.1 billion in cash withdrawals offsetting our $4.1 billion in Aggregate Cash Deposits held within the same financial institution under these cash pooling arrangements.